District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006
(Notified version 2006)
Street index |
Planning maps |
Text |
Appendices |
Annexures |
Section 32 material |
Plan modifications |
Help |
Notified - Home |
Decision - Home
Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section
- Proposed 2006
|
Topic: |
Great
Barrier Settlement Areas |
|
Report to: |
The
Hearing Panel |
|
Author: |
Richard Osborne |
| Date: |
5
June 2008 |
| Group
file: |
314/274027 |
1.0
Introduction
This report relates to
submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the
council in relation to part 10b – settlement areas of the Auckland City District
Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was
publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging
submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions
requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The
closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.
This report has been prepared
under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the
hearings panel to consider the submissions on part 10b – settlement areas. This
report outlines the key issues raised by the decisions requested in the
submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually). Further submissions
are not specifically addressed but are listed in appendix 1 to this
report. Further submissions will be dealt with in conjunction with the
submissions to which they relate.
The recommendations contained in
this report are not decisions of the council. The council will issue its
decisions following consideration of the submissions, further submissions, any
supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this report. The council's
decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan have been
completed. The decision reports will identify in more detail whether each
submission has been accepted or rejected (in full or in part).
2.0
Statutory framework
This section of the report
briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider
the submissions. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos
Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W047/05 where the court set
out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other
methods in district plans:
- The objectives of the Plan
are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
- Are the most appropriate way
to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
- Assist the council to carry
out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the
provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1).
- The policies, rules, or other
methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
- Are the most appropriate way
to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
- Assist the council to carry
out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the
provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
- (If a rule) achieve the
objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).
The purpose of the RMA is "to
promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and
"sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:
"... managing the use, development,
and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which
enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and
cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—
(a) Sustaining the
potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the
reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the
life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying,
or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment."
Along with section 5, part 2 of
the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters)
and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council
needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those
matters are also relevant when considering submissions.
The Plan must assist the council
to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:
"(a) The establishment,
implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve
integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of
land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:
(b) the control of any
actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land,
including for the purpose of—
(i) the avoidance or
mitigation of natural hazards; and
(ii) the prevention or
mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or
transportation of hazardous substances; and
(iia) the prevention or
mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of
contaminated land:
(iii) the maintenance of
indigenous biological diversity:
(c) ...
(d) The control of the
emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:
(e) The control of any
actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in
rivers and lakes."
In addition to the matters listed
above from the Eldamos decision:
- The Plan must "give effect
to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement
(s75(3)(a) and (b)).
- The Plan must "give effect
to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005)
(s75(3)(c)).
- The Plan must be "not
inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
- The council must ensure that
that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine
Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7
and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the
RMA.
3.0
Background
This section of the report sets
out background information about the topic under consideration. Part 10b of the
Plan outlines the objectives, policies and activity tables for the nine
settlement areas. The development controls for the settlement areas are located
in part 10c and will be addressed in the hearing report for that section of the
Plan. The settlement areas apply to Great Barrier island only. They identify
the areas where residential and commercial development has historically
occurred. The nine settlement areas are:
- Tryphena
- Medlands
- Claris
- Okupu
- Whangaparapara
- Awana
- Okiwi
- Port Fitzroy
- Aotea
Each
settlement area has a settlement plan which further divides each settlement area
into sub-areas. Activity tables and development controls apply to each of the
sub-areas.
4.0
Overview analysis of submissions
Submissions generally address
part 10b as a whole, or they are specific to the individual settlement area.
Those submissions which are specific to part 10b as a whole address a range of
key issues. These are indicated as follows:
- That there is greater provision for growth within various
settlement areas.
- That a new settlement area is created for the Orama Christian
Fellowship Trust land at Karaka Bay.
- That there is greater recognition of the ecological values
within the settlement areas.
- That various sites which are outside the settlement areas are
included within the settlement area, which would provide for greater development
potential.
- That there is greater recognition of retail, commercial and
industrial activities within settlement areas.
- That various sites are reclassified within the settlement areas,
i.e. a different sub-area is applied to particular sites.
- That the letting of dwellings for visitors and tourists for a
daily tariff is permitted.
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report
summarises the key issues raised by the decisions requested in submissions about
part 10b - settlement areas. In some instances it recommends how the panel
could amend the Plan in response to the matters raised and decisions requested
in submissions. Elsewhere it calls for further information to be provided at
the hearing so that the matter can be deliberated on. In some circumstances
detailed engineering, ecological or other specialist reports may be required
before a decision is made to include a site within a settlement area, or to
change the sub-area that applies to a site.
A list of the submissions which
raise issues about part 10b – settlement areas together with the related further
submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the
summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this
report. The nine settlement area maps from the Plan are attached at appendix
3.
The list of submissions contained
in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which
were received 'late', i.e. they were received after the closing date for lodging
submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late
submissions were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing
process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time
limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in appendix 1.
This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.
4.2 Submissions about part 10b as a whole
Submissions dealt with in this
section: 1552/8, 2092/1, 2545/1, 2630/1, 2571/1, 2713/2, 2713/3, 2846/3, 2906/3,
3110/2, 3521/119, 3746/1 and 3770/1.
4.2.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- That there is greater provision for growth within the settlement
areas.
- That a new settlement area is created for the Orama Christian
Fellowship Trust land at Karaka Bay.
- That the objectives, policies and rules are refocused so that
the nine settlement areas are reduced to one settlement area, Tryphena.
- That there is greater recognition of the ecological values
within the settlement areas.
- That there is greater recognition of retail, commercial and
industrial activities within settlement areas.
- That the letting of dwellings for visitors and tourists for a
daily tariff is permitted.
- That land within the settlement area which is conservation
estate be included within the conservation land unit.
- Include reference to the NZ Fire Service Standards for water
tanks for new development.
- Add additional reference clauses for clarification purposes.
4.2.2 Consideration of key issues
The resource management strategy
seeks to enable growth and development in settlement areas on Great Barrier.
This will encourage the use of existing infrastructure in areas that are already
used for residential and commercial uses, while protecting the surrounding
landscape and natural features from inappropriate development. Various
submissions have suggested that the settlement areas do not enable sufficient
opportunities for growth and the rules should either be relaxed, or different
and less restrictive sub-areas within the settlement area should apply, or the
settlement area should be expanded.
While there is opportunity for
growth within the settlement areas as notified, it is considered that additional
opportunities can be provided for through a variety of techniques. These
include rationalisation of the sub-areas that apply within the various
settlement areas, expansion of some of the settlement area boundaries and
modifications to the subdivision controls (as outlined in the subdivision
hearing report). Any modification to the development controls for the
settlement areas will be addressed in the hearing report for part 10c of the
Plan, development controls. These potential changes have been outlined in broad
terms when discussing the relevant settlement area.
Submission 2846 seeks that a new
settlement area be applied to the Orama Christian Fellowship Trust (the Trust)
land at Karaka Bay Road, or alternatively that the complex be a scheduled
activity, or that a provision with a similar outcome be provided. The land
which is used by the Orama Christian Fellowship Trust currently falls within
landforms 1 (coastal cliffs and slopes), 3 (alluvial flats), 5 (productive land)
and 6 (regenerating slopes). As outlined in the submission the Trust's land is
used for residential purposes; retreats, conferences and seminars; camping;
outdoor education; farming and rehabilitation work.
It is acknowledged that the
existing landform land units that apply to the Trust's property do not reflect
the land uses that have been established over a number of years and may inhibit
sustainable land uses in the future. However, it is also considered that
settlement areas convey particular development rights in terms of subdivision
and land use that may not be applicable for the Trust's intended future uses.
Therefore, should a new settlement area be created for the land at Orama it is
likely that new sub-areas would need to be created, with specific subdivision
provisions and land use controls that apply only to Orama. It is therefore
recommended that a new settlement area is not created for Orama, but that
council staff work with the Trust and its representatives with a view to
creating a concept plan for Orama that recognises and provides for a range of
existing and future land uses.
Other submissions have raised the
option of reducing the nine settlement areas to one and identifying Tryphena as
a pilot model and priority place by which to develop, evolve, implement and
trial targeted growth and sustainable development. As described in the
discussions on the Tryphena settlement area it has been targeted for limited
growth. However, it is not intended that all growth on Barrier be limited to
Tryphena. There are eight other settlement areas in the Plan. These recognise
the historic and dispersed settlement pattern of the Barrier. It is not
considered sustainable to direct all growth into Tryphena and ignore the
legitimate opportunity for development in other settlement areas.
Various submissions request that the relevant clause in each settlement area is
amended so that the letting of dwellings for visitors and tourists at a daily
tariff is a permitted activity. The activity tables do not state that the
letting of dwellings specifically requires resource consent. Dwellings (one per
site) are a permitted activity, however, the letting of dwellings has been
considered to fall within the definition of visitor accommodation because it may
be considered to be serviced rental accommodation for visitors that is offered
at a daily tariff. As visitor accommodation requires discretionary activity
consent, the letting of dwelling consequently requires discretionary activity
consent. Officers acknowledge that this is an issue that needs to be addressed
and are still working on various options and solutions. This will include
providing clarity in the Plan provisions and within the definitions of "visitor
accommodation". This matter will be more fully addressed in a later hearing
report.
Submissions have requested that
there is greater recognition of important ecological features within the
settlement areas. The ecology of Great Barrier is protected through a variety
of techniques. At a broad level this includes the identification of particular
landform land units that apply specific controls to dune and wetland systems,
forest and bush areas etc. Inherent within these landforms is recognition of
the ecological features. Sites of ecological significance and sensitive areas
have also been identified which overlay the land unit controls. General tree
protection rules also protect trees above a particular height and girth and
there are other development controls that help protect ecological values. It is
also noted that policies 3.2.3(5) and 10b.3.2(2), which apply to the Barrier,
state the following respectively:
"By
protecting natural features, such as wetland systems, indigenous vegetation and
wildlife habitats from the adverse effects of use and development."
"By
ensuring that development maintains or enhances the high landscape and
ecological values of Great Barrier."
Therefore from a broad
perspective it is considered that appropriate recognition of important
ecological features already exists within the Plan in relation to settlement
areas and it is not necessary to add additional policies in this regard. Any
exceptions are specifically outlined when discussing the particular settlement
area.
The Plan has a conservation land
unit that contains land owned by DoC. This land unit applies to the majority of
DoC owned land and contains a specific objective, policies and rules. However,
some of the DoC land is included within settlement areas, specifically at Claris
and Medlands. The rationale for this was that the land specifically influenced
the settlement area and therefore was best included within it to encourage a
holistic approach to management of the settlement area. Notwithstanding this,
as the conservation land unit has provisions that are specific to conservation
of land, which is not about growth or development, it is considered that all
conservation land be removed from the settlement areas.
Submission 537/13 addresses NZ
Fire Service Water Suppliers Code and requests that an additional development
control is included within Part 10b. The standard referred to (NZS 4509:2003)
is used to establish the quantity of water required for fire fighting purposes
in relation to fire hazard in premises located in urban fire districts. For any
premises, this code of practice establishes the minimum fire fighting water
supply that is required for the fire hazard. To comply with this standard it
must be shown that this minimum supply is designed to be available at all times.
Due to the detailed and discretionary nature of these standards, it is
considered that they are not suitable for inclusion in a district plan.
Submission 2092/1 requests an
additional clause is added which refers Plan users to clause 10b.24 –
relationship with rules in other parts of the Plan. This is intended to provide
a cross reference as a reminder to Plan users about other relevant sections. It
is agreed that this would improve the useability of the Plan.
Note: Where issues have
been addressed at a broad level they will not be revisited in relation to each
individual settlement area.
4.3 Submissions about the objectives and policies which apply to all of
the settlement areas
Submissions dealt with in this
section: 120, 121, 1405/2, 1406/2 and 3521/114.
4.3.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- That the objectives and policies are retained.
- That changes are made to objective 10b.3.1 so that growth is
provided for.
- That specific reference is made to ARC documents.
4.3.1.1 Settlement areas – objectives & policies
Clause 3.2.4 of the Plan outlines
the resource management strategy for the Great Barrier strategic management
area. In describing the strategy it notes that settlement plans promote growth
and development in and around the settlement areas on Great Barrier. Clause
10b.3.1 and 10b.3.2 describe the broad objectives and policies that apply to all
settlement areas. In particular objective 10B.3.1 states the following:
By
providing for limited growth in the settlement areas, while protecting the
natural environment.
It is acknowledged that there is
a subtle disconnect between the resource management strategy and the objective
which uses the word 'limited'. Depending on the outcome of the submissions
presented at the hearing it is recommended that some changes are made to the
policy framework to ensure consistency in the approach.
Submission 3521/121 requests that
clause 10b.3.2(3) is amended to clarify that any re-use option other than land
disposal is likely to require an ARC consent. While the Plan has made reference
to the need to consider ARC statutory and non statutory documents in various
locations it is not considered necessary to make reference to them in the
objectives and policies of the Plan.
4.4 Submissions about clause 10b.5 - the Tryphena settlement
area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/3, 499/1, 943/1, 943/2, 943/3,
1058/1, 1284/24, 1284/25, 1284/26, 1318/3, 1352/3, 1390/3, 1395/3, 1417/3,
1429/1, 1429/2,1434/3, 1479/1, 1479/2, 1536/3, 1537/1, 1537/2, 1556/1, 1556/2,
1562/3, 1565/3, 1573/3, 1586/3, 1602/2, 1603/3, 1894/1, 1894/2, 1902/3, 1931/3,
1932/1, 1932/2, 1955/3, 2136/1, 2136/2, 2148/3, 2149/1,2149/2, 2153/3, 2160/1,
2160/2, 2185/3, 2193/3, 2215/3, 2255/1, 2255/2, 2264/1,2264/2, 2326/3, 2385/3,
2386/3, 2395/3, 2417/3, 2446/1,2446/2, 2450/3, 2476/3, 2483/3, 2504/1, 2535/3,
2744/3, 2849/3, 2860/1, 2860/2, 2874/1, 2874/2, 3644/1, 3644/2, 3682/1, 3682/2,
3699/2, 3746/3, 3770/3, 3773/1 and 3773/2.
4.4.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Various submissions seek changes to the Tryphena settlement area that
either provide for more growth, or apply a different sub-area to a particular
site.
- That the boundary line of the Tryphena reserve and coastal margin on
figure 10b.1 be redrawn to exclude all private property and reflect the
esplanade reserve.
- That the Tryphena settlement zone be redefined to include all
residential properties, and that consultation be undertaken with the owners of
larger headland titles.
- That the Tryphena headland protection area south of Mulberry Grove be
removed.
- That the concept of rezoning the sections at the bottom of Blackwell
Drive to Tryphena local retailing be rejected.
- That 120 Shoal Bay Road be reclassified from Tryphena headland
protection area to a new sub area that takes into account existing uses.
- That the Plan provisions be deleted as they apply to the submitter's
land, specifically the Blackwell property on the corner of Shoal Bay Road and
Medlands Road, Tryphena, and that they be replaced with an integrated mixed-use
zone that enables a range of land use.
- The Tryphena settlement area is amended to provide for a range of
land use and development.
- That a small community based wastewater facility is made available as
a means for minimising risk to a sensitive part of the coast.
- That a property management plan be allowed for 120 Shoal Bay Road,
Tryphena.
- That clause 10b.5.2 is amended so that the letting of dwellings for
visitors and tourists at a daily tariff is a permitted activity.
- That an additional policy is added to clause 10b.5.2 seeking greater
protection of sensitive ecological areas.
- That consultation is undertaken with the property owners north of
Tryphena and the possibility of including pastoral and regenerating slopes into
the Tryphena settlement area is considered.
4.4.2 Consideration of principal issues
Various submissions request that different planning approaches are applied to
Tryphena. These include the application of a concept plan, a management plan, a
rural management plan, splitting it into two parts, setting up a special
taskforce etc. It is acknowledged that splitting one settlement area into five
sub-areas may be overly complicated and it may be possible to rationalise the
number of sub-areas. In particular the Tryphena reserve and coastal margin
sub-area could be removed and land that is owned by council included within the
recreation 1 land unit, which applies to local parks and esplanade reserves.
Privately owned land that is within the reserve and coastal margin sub-area
could be included within the residential amenity sub-area. This would negate
the need for the Tryphena reserve and coastal margins sub-area and the
corresponding development restrictions. Notwithstanding the reduction of
sub-areas from five to four, it is considered that the settlement area approach
which defines the existing and proposed land uses throughout Tryphena is a
suitable planning mechanism to use. It is therefore not considered necessary to
apply a new planning approach to the Tryphena settlement area.
Some submissions request that
Tryphena is identified as a pilot model and priority place by which to develop,
evolve, implement and trial targeted growth and sustainable development. As
acknowledged in the Plan some growth will be provided for in the Tryphena
settlement area. However, it is not intended that all growth on Barrier be
limited to Tryphena. There are eight other settlement areas in the Plan. These
recognise the historic and dispersed settlement pattern of Barrier. It is not
considered sustainable to direct all growth into Tryphena and ignore the
legitimate opportunity for development in other settlement areas.
There are submissions requesting
inclusion of land to the east of the Tryphena Settlement Area at 10 Omanawa Lane
and 131 Rosalie Bay Road. These sites are currently classified as Landform 6
(Regenerating Slopes) and a small area of Landform 7 (Forest and Bush). It is
considered that there is merit in looking into the feasibility of development on
these sites.
Submission 1284 addresses land
immediately north of Shoal Bay Road and east of Medland's Road and seeks
rationalisation and enhancement of the area around Blackwell Drive through an
integrated mixed use approach enabling a range of land uses. It is considered
that there may be some opportunity for expansion of the settlement area into the
submitter's land. However, there are natural restraints on the lower portion of
the site, such as flood hazards and ecologically significant areas which would
need to be addressed. The opportunities for expansion of the settlement area
could entail land immediately north of the local retailing and residential
amenity sub-areas off Blackwell Drive. It is recommended that the submitter
provide clarification at the hearing about the opportunities for expansion of
the settlement area.
Various other submissions have
sought that the land immediately north of the Tryphena settlement, (referred to
in submission 1284), which is currently within the pastoral land and
regenerating slopes landform land units, is considered for inclusion within the
Tryphena settlement area. It is noted that the Plan, as notified, does provide
opportunity for growth within the settlement areas, and that the suggested
amendments to the settlement areas will provide further opportunity for growth.
Notwithstanding that, it is also acknowledged that some land where growth is
provided for is difficult to develop due to steep topography, mature vegetation,
ecological constraints etc. As noted in the above paragraph there may be some
opportunity for expansion of the settlement area into this site.
A submitter has also requested
that one of these sites, 30 Puriri Bay Road, could be reclassified as Commercial
4 (visitor facilities) or Commercial 5 (industrial). They state that the site
has been used in the past for commercial horticulture and grazing and is
reasonably flat. As part of the consideration of this site, an assessment will
be undertaken of the most appropriate classification i.e. Remain as it is, be
located within the Tryphena Settlement Area or be classified as Commercial 4 or
5. At this stage, it is not considered appropriate to classify the site as
Commercial 5 (industrial).
Submissions request that 476 Shoal Bay Road and 65-67 Blackwell Drive
are included within the residential amenity area instead of the local retailing
area. These sites appear to be used for residential purposes, rather than
retail. Given the residential use of these sites, it is recommended that
consideration is given to including them within the residential amenity area.
Submission 1284/28 recommends
that a small community based wastewater facility is made available as a means
for minimising risk to a sensitive part of the coast. The site size and
subdivision standards in the Plan are large enough for on-site disposal of
wastewater. The on-site disposal of wastewater is also consistent with the
approach outlined in clause 4.8.2 of the Plan which states that outside of the
exceptions noted future development must be capable of satisfactorily treating
and disposing of wastewater on-site. The submitter may be referring to the
disposal issues around his site in particular, rather than a facility for the
community as a whole. It is expected that the Auckland Regional Council would
control the substantive issues around a "cross-boundary" disposal facility
rather than the district plan.
Submission 250/1 requests that
the extent of the Mulberry Grove school area is consistent with the extent of
the designation. It is acknowledged that the extent of the designation is
different to that indicated on the settlement area map. It is therefore
recommended that the settlement area map is amended accordingly.
Various submissions have sought
changes to the headland protection sub-area within the Tryphena settlement
area. The primary concern is that the headland protection sub-area places
unnecessary restrictions on property owners and many of the values the sub-area
seeks to protect are already protected through other mechanisms. The relief
seeks removal of clauses that restrict property owners, consultation with land
owners and redefinition of the Tryphena settlement area with the possibility of
including larger headland titles within Landform 6.
The headland protection sub-area
applies to a number of sites that are located on or close to the headlands that
separate the Mulberry Grove and Gooseberry Flats residential areas. Its intent
is to retain the high amenity values as a means of separating the residential
areas. The sites within the sub-area vary considerably in size, ranging from
comparatively small residential allotments of approximately 800m2 to
1200m2, to larger sites from 3-4 hectares to one site of 33
hectares. Many of the smaller sites have dwellings on them. Additions and
alterations to existing buildings and the construction of new buildings are a
restricted discretionary activity. Subdivision, as a discretionary activity,
requires a 3000m2 minimum site size and a 7000m2 average.
The headland protection sub-area
is made up of highly visible and predominantly vegetated sites. There is merit
in reviewing the purpose of this sub-area and analysing whether or not existing
controls on vegetation clearance, significant ridgelines and earthworks etc. can
deal with the potential effects of development without the need for another
overlay of a sub-area. It is considered that a key issue is minimum site size
for subdivision as a minimum area of 1500m2 (as recommended for
residential amenity areas) may not be appropriate in these areas.
For residential amenity areas
additions, alterations and new buildings do not require a resource consent,
however, there are controls on the colour of buildings. As notified, the
subdivision standards are also 3000m2 site size and a 7000m2
average, however, the subdivision hearing report recommends that residential
amenity areas have a 1500m2 minimum site size. Landform 6
(regenerating slopes) applies to extensive areas of regenerating bush where
kanuka and manuka are the predominant vegetation. Landform 6 is characterised
by high natural character, visual amenity and ecological values with unobtrusive
building, if there are buildings at all. Additions and alterations to existing
buildings and the construction of new buildings are a restricted discretionary
activity. The minimum site size is 25 hectares.
It is considered that the smaller
sites should be included within the residential amenity sub-area, rather than
the headland protection sub-area. Existing vegetation, sensitive area,
ridgeline, colour and bulk and location controls will adequately address amenity
and visual impacts. Including the larger sites within Landform 6 (regenerating
slopes) as requested by some submitters will significantly reduce the
subdivision potential of these sites, but still require consent for new
buildings as well as additions and alterations to existing buildings. It is
therefore recommended that the larger sites remain within the headland
protection sub-area (or whatever part of the settlement area it will become if
the headland protection sub-area is removed).
Notwithstanding the above, it is
acknowledged that there is a variety of complicated and historical land use
issues associated with Tryphena. While it is possible to make broad
recommendations it is considered some of the issues raised in submissions are
best explained at the hearing.
4.5 Submissions about clause 10b6 – the Medlands settlement
area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/4, 1395/4, 1390/4, 1352/4,
1318/4, 1434/4, 1417/4, 1406/24, 1405/24, 1406/25, 1405/25, 1536/4, 1562/4,
1565/4, 1573/4, 1586/4, 1902/4, 1931/4, 1955/4, 1980/1, 2148/4, 2153/4, 2185/4,
2193/4, 2215/4, 2326/4, 2385/4, 2386/4, 2395/4, 2417/4, 2450/4, 2476/4, 2483/4,
2504/2, 2521/1, 2521/2, 2535/4, 2638/1, 2744/4, 2849/4, 3089/4, 3089/5,
3521/115, 3746/4 and 3770/4
4.5.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Amend the reference to 'Medland's quarry area' to 'Blackwell's quarry
area' to reflect the Blackwell ownership of the quarry.
- Reclassify land from the Medland's settlement area to omit low lying
land.
- Reclassify land on Greenside and Primrose Hill Road into the
Medland's settlement area.
- Reclassify land north of Medland's beach within the Medland's
settlement area.
4.5.2 Consideration of principal issues
It is agreed that the name
'Blackwell's quarry' is more accurate than "Medland's Quarry" and it should be
used when describing the quarry in the Medland's settlement area.
Submission 1408 requests that low
lying land is excluded from the settlement area. It is noted that the majority
of land within the residential amenity sub-area has already been subdivided and
many sites have dwellings on them. Therefore, it would serve limited purpose to
exclude these sites from the settlement area. For those sites that could be
subdivided (assuming a 2000m2 site size) the subdivision provisions
provide sufficient potential to address any flooding issues.
A number of submissions request
that land east of the settlement area boundary around Greenside and Primrose
Hill Road is included within the settlement area. A small residential enclave
already exists to the east of the Medland settlement area. A council walking
bridge has been built across the stream, however, vehicle access is by driving
across the stream itself. Part of the site which the submissions seek to have
included within the settlement area, and the area that people drive across to
access it, is ecologically significant. This ecological area also extends south
up Primrose Hill Road towards Schooner Bay. Any subdivision of this area would
require additional access and works which could result in significant adverse
effects on the ecology, landscape and visual amenity of the area. Accordingly,
it is not considered that this area is appropriate for inclusion within the
settlement area.
Submission 3089 requests that
land west of the Medland's settlement area is included within the settlement
area. The land referred to in the submission is currently within landforms 1
(coastal cliffs and slopes) and 7 (forest and bush areas). The subject area is
denoted as the Sugar Loaf and it forms the western end of Medland's beach. As
indicated in the landform land units the site is steep and partially covered in
bush. It is visually prominent. While the submission refers to the need for
further subdivision in the Medland's settlement area it also refers to the
wishes of private property owners to designate conservation areas through
covenants etc.
If the submitter is referring to
the area of land for inclusion within the settlement area so that it can be
subdivided then it is noted that the Plan specifically discourages buildings in
landform 1 due to its dynamic landscape features, visual prominence and
potential for instability and erosion. Buildings in landform 7 are encouraged
to blend in with the natural character of these bush areas. Given the area's
steep and dynamic nature, its natural character and the potential for
significant visual and amenity impacts it does not immediately appear to be
suitable for redevelopment. It would be useful to hear from the submitter about
how the area could be developed. Alternatively, if the submitter is referring
to covenanting of the land then such a process can be undertaken separately from
Plan review process.
4.6 Submissions about clause 10b.7 - the Claris settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 89/2, 173/2, 178/2, 179/2, 180/2,
181/2, 182/2, 183/2, 184/2, 185/2, 186/2, 187/2, 188/2, 189/2, 190/2, 191/2,
192/2, 193/2, 194/2, 195/2, 196/2, 197/2, 198/2, 199/2, 200/2, 201/2, 202/2,
203/2, 204/2, 205/2 , 206/2, 207/2, 208/2,209/2, 210/2, 211/2, 212/2, 213/2,
214/2, 215/2, 216/2, 217/2, 218/2, 219/2, 220/2, 221/2,222/2, 223/2, 224/2,
225/2, 226/2, 227/2, 228/2, 229/2, 230/2, 231/2, 232/2, 233/2, 234/2, 235/2,
236/2, 239/2, 252/2, 253/2, 279/2, 381/2, 879/2, 879/3, 1427/2, 1427/3, 1433/2,
1433/3, 1444/2, 1444/3, 1507/2, 1507/3, 1583/1, 1944/2, 1944/3, 1956/2, 1956/3,
2007/2, 2007/3, 2044/2, 2084/2, 2084/3, 2087/2, 2087/3, 2303/2, 2303/3, 2321/2,
2321/3, 2325/2, 2325/3, 2357/2, 2382/2, 2382/3, 2383/2, 2383/3, 2429/2, 2429/3,
2430/2, 2430/3, 2431/2, 2431/3, 2432/2, 2432/3, 2433/2, 2433/3, 2436/1, 2436/2,
2436/3, 2436/4, 2436/5, 2436/6, 2436/7, 2436/8, 2436/9, 2437/1, 2437/2, 2437/3,
2437/4, 2437/5, 2437/6, 2437/7, 2437/8, 2437/9, 2438/1 , 2438/2, 2438/3, 2438/4,
2438/5, 2438/6, 2438/7, 2438/8, 2438/9, 2500/2, 2504/3, 2544/2, 2544/3, 2715/2,
2906/4, 3047/1, 3521/116 and 3574/10.
4.6.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- That the new Claris local retailing area be adopted.
- Retention and implementation of the Claris Settlement Area and the
Claris Light Industrial Area following a review of those provisions in
accordance with the relief sought under submission 2906/1 and 2906/2.
- Supports the opportunities that the Plan will give to development at
Claris
- Extension of the Claris light industrial area to include the two
areas of existing activity on the Gray property, which include the Heritage and
Arts Centre on Gray Road and the Claris Nursery and Garden Centre on Hector
Sanderson Road (Plan attached to submission).
- Extension of the Claris light industrial area to include the adjacent
areas of land to enable the opportunity for the establishment of light
industrial and/ or horticultural activities. (Plan attached to submission).
- Extension of the settlement area south of Oceanview Road to
accommodate land to be developed for the Pensioner housing trust.
- Extension of the settlement area south of Oceanview Road to
accommodate land to be developed for residential and retail development.
- Assess the opportunities and suitability for a wider range of land
within the settlement area.
4.6.2 Consideration of principal issues
The Claris settlement area is
located on reasonably flat land adjacent to the Kaitoke beach and wetland. It
contains a range of land uses, such as the council service centre, retail and
residential activities, the airfield and landfill. The Claris settlement area
contains five sub-areas for local retailing; the airport; residential; light
industry; and dune and wetland conservation. The majority of the land within
the settlement area falls within the dune and wetland conservation and the
airport sub-areas.
There are three distinct
'pockets' of light industrial land within the Claris settlement area. Two of
them front onto Gray Road, with a smaller pocket fronting Hector Sanderson
Road. The sub-zone largely provides for existing industrial type uses. Because
there are existing industrial land uses at Claris, should there be a need for
more light industrial land on the Barrier, then it is considered that Claris is
an appropriate location. Submissions have sought that the Claris light
industrial area is retained and extended as outlined in the map attached to
submission 879.
It is considered that there is
potential for expansion of the Claris light industrial sub-area, but not to the
extent outlined in the submission. An ecological report[1]
was carried out by Wildland Consultants in October 2005 and it indicates there
are some stands of bush that are worthy of retention. Extending the light
industrial sub-area west along Gray Road means that the ecological values of the
site can be retained, while enabling some expansion for industrial land. It is
also recommended that the existing heritage and arts centre (immediately west of
the paper road that dissects the site) is included within the light industrial
sub-area.
Submissions also seek that land
(enough for 5-6 lots) is included in a bush residential zone with a narrow
reserve dissecting the proposed residential and expanded light industrial.
Again, this is outlined in the plan attached to submission 879. Providing
additional residential land in close proximity to light industrial land, as well
as the Claris airfield, may create conflict between residential and adjacent
land uses. Also, it is noted that the area of land on which the submitter
suggests that residential be expanded to contains some ecological values that
are considered worthy of retention (as outlined in the Wildlands report). It is
therefore considered that this is not the most appropriate place for additional
residential land in the Claris area.
Submissions have also sought
expansion of the local retailing sub-area along Hector Sanderson Road. It is
noted that the settlement area already provides some opportunity for additional
retail development along Hector Sanderson Road. However, it is agreed that this
could be further expanded west along Hector Sanderson Road (towards the police
station) to provide additional land for retail activities. Consideration should
also be given to further residential land in this location, outside of the
Claris airfield noise protection fans.
Various submissions have sought
that an area of land east of Oceanview Road is included in the Claris settlement
area and that the provisions are amended so that they provide for pensioner
housing. The submission by the Great Barrier Pensioner Housing Trust outlines
that there is currently no suitable land available on the Barrier for the
pensioner community, and this has resulted in a number of members of that
community leaving the island. The issue of pensioner housing on the Barrier has
been an ongoing for a number of years. The 'site' referred to in the
submissions is approximately 1.5 hectares of a much larger 125 hectare piece of
land. A resource consent has been lodged for the establishment of twelve
pensioner houses, a communal centre and a managers centre. However, the layout,
design and number of buildings may have changed since lodgement. The
application is currently on-hold pending further information being supplied to
council. The 'site' is located within landform 2 (dune systems) in the Plan and
is also located within a sensitive area. Sensitive areas are ecologically
significant sites.
With an ageing population it is
apparent that there is an important social need for pensioner housing on the
Barrier and that enabling people to provide for their social wellbeing and
health and safety through the provision of pensioner housing helps promote
sustainable management. It is also acknowledged that the 'site' is reasonably
flat and is located in reasonably close proximity to the service centre, airport
and retail activities. Notwithstanding that, it is noted that dune systems are
dynamic by their nature and are often unstable. They are also characterised by
high natural character and visual amenity values. This particular 'site' also
falls within an area which has been protected because of its ecological
significance. The Plan provisions strongly discourage buildings or activities
within the dune systems.
In terms of including the 'site'
within the settlement area careful consideration of the alternatives, costs and
benefits would need to be undertaken before a decision could be made. This
analysis is still ongoing and it would be helpful for the submitters to give
detail as to how this site could be developed sustainably within this dune
system.
Submission 3085 seeks that land
west of the proposed pensioner housing site adjacent to Walter Blackwell Road is
also included within the settlement area for residential and retail
development. The suggested amendments to the Claris settlement area, and other
settlement areas on the Barrier, will provide land for development over and
above what was already provided for in the Plan as notified. Again, it does not
immediately appear to be suitable for residential development. Further analysis
is continuing given the dynamic nature of the land, its ecological values and
the potential for visual impacts.
Submissions have sought changes
to the description of the Claris settlement area, as well as changes to the
objectives and policies etc. Depending on whether changes are made to the
settlement area then some of these changes will also be required to the
explanatory text, objectives and policies etc. Therefore, any changes to the
text will largely be determined by changes to the settlement area boundaries,
and the extent of the sub-areas within the settlement area.
4.7 Submissions about clause 10b.8 - the Okupu settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 457/1, 474/5, 1318/5, 1352/5,
1390/5, 1395/5, 1417/5, 1434/5, 1536/5, 1562/5, 1565/5, 1573/5, 1586/5, 1902/5,
1931/5, 1955/5, 2092/2, 2148/5, 2153/5, 2185/5, 2193/5, 2215/5, 2326/5, 2385/5,
2386/5, 2395/5, 2417/5, 2450/5, 2476/5, 2483/5, 2504/4, 2535/5, 2744/5, 2849/5,
3521/117, 3746/5 and 3770/5.
4.7.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Redrawing of Okupu settlement boundaries in consultation with
landowners to provide a greater area where subdivision is a permitted activity
- A greater area should be allowed for development as a discretionary
activity within the residential amenity area.
- Remove coastal properties from the settlement area.
- Reclassify the lower half of 256 Blind Bay Road from landform 6 to
island residential 2.
4.7.2 Consideration of principal issues
The boundaries of the Okupu
settlement area cover the existing residential area as well as the reserve and
dune protection area. The Okupu residential amenity sub-area is made up of two
distinct residential enclaves. One immediately north of the beach, and another
approximately 1 km further north up Blind Bay Road. The site sizes indicate
some capacity for subdivision exists within the existing residential amenity
sub-area. Some submissions have sought that further opportunity for subdivision
is provided for.
It is acknowledged that further
land could be incorporated into the residential amenity sub-area to provide
additional residential land. While no detailed analysis has been undertaken
five larger sites ranging from approximately 3.9 to 4.5 hectares exist to the
west of Blind Bay Road. They are currently within landforms 6 (regenerating
slopes) or 7 (forest and bush). A sensitive area (council ref: 54-5) covers
parts of three of these five sites. It is considered that there is potential
for parts of these sites, outside the sensitive area boundaries, to be included
within the Okupu settlement area. Alternatively, immediately north of the
residential amenity sub-area adjacent to Okupu Bay, east of Blind Bay Road and
south of the council reserve, another area of land could be considered for
inclusion within the settlement area. Given the above, there may be potential
for additional land to be included within the Okupu settlement area for
residential purposes. However, further investigations would need to be
undertaken as to the feasibility of this approach.
Submission 1408 requests that
coastal properties are omitted from the Okupu settlement area, because
development of these sites would reduce amenity values, create visual impacts
from the beach and adversely affect wildlife. It is acknowledged that there are
a couple of larger sites in close proximity to the beach that could be
subdivided under the subdivision site size outlined in the Plan, and that the
largest site (8,700m2) is closest to the beach. Notwithstanding
that, the subdivision potential (for sites in close proximity to the beach) is
limited. There are a number of other controls contained within the Plan that
would limit the impact of subdivision on the coastal environment. These include
coastal protection yards, vegetation controls, building coverage controls.
Other restraints, such as flood hazards could further limit development.
Therefore, it is considered that given the limited development potential that
the properties referred to should remain in the settlement area.
4.8 Submissions about clause 10b.9 - the Whangaparapara
settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/6, 1318/6, 1352/6, 1390/6,
1395/6, 1417/6, 1434/6, 1562/6, 1565/6, 1573/6, 1586/6, 1902/6, 1931/6, 1955/6,
2148/6, 2153/6, 2185/6, 2193/6, 2194/1, 2215/6, 2326/6, 2385/6, 2386/6, 2395/6,
2417/6 2450/6, 2476/6, 2483/6, 2504/5, 2535/6, 2744/6, 2849/6, 3746/6 and
3770/6.
4.8.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Remove Visitor Accommodation sub-area from the site at 735 Whangaparapara Road, Great Barrier and return it to residential amenity zoning.
4.8.2 Consideration of principal issues
The Whangaparapara settlement
area is located on the eastern side of Whangaparapara Harbour. It principally
contains sites which are included in the residential amenity sub-area, apart
from one site which is denoted as Whangaparapara visitor accommodation. A wharf
services the settlement area and beyond. The site denoted as visitor
accommodation contains an existing visitor facility, and a specific objective,
policies and rules relate to that site only. The intention of providing a site
specific sub-area is to recognise the existing land use and provide for it
through appropriate provisions. For example, visitor accommodation, tourist
complex, café, restaurant etc are permitted activities within the Whangaparapara
visitor accommodation sub-area. However, these activities require a resource
consent in the residential sub-area. Removing the visitor accommodation
sub-area from the site and making it residential amenity would mean that should
someone seek to undertake these types of activities in the future they would
require a resource consent. However, if the owner's intention is to use the
site for residential purposes in the future then a residential sub-area would be
more appropriate. Therefore, if the owners of the site that is zoned within the
Whangaparapara visitor accommodation sub-area could inform the hearings panel of
its intended future use then this could help in the decision making process.
4.9 Submissions about clause 10b.10 - the Awana settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/7, 1318/7, 1352/7, 1390/7,
1395/7, 1417/7, 1434/7, 1536/7, 1562/7, 1565/7, 1573/7, 1586/7, 1902/7, 1931/7,
1955/7, 2148/7, 2153/7, 2185/7, 2193/7, 2385/7, 2386/7, 2395/7, 2417/7, 2450/7,
2476/7, 2483/7, 2504/6, 2535/7, 2744/7, 2849/7, 3746/7 and 3770/7.
4.9.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Amend clause 10b.10.2 so that the letting of dwellings for visitors
and tourists at a daily tariff is a permitted activity.
- By adding an additional policy in clause 10b.10.2 as follows: "By
ensuring that development of sites has sufficient regard for the sensitive
ecological areas that may be located adjacent (or within proximity) to that area
of development".
4.9.2 Planner's recommended amendments to the Plan
These issue have been addressed
in section 4.2 of this report.
4.10 Submissions about clause 10b.11 - the Okiwi settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 474/8, 1071/1, 1318/8, 1352/8,
1390/8, 1395/8, 1417/8, 1434/8, 1536/8, 1562/8, 1565/8, 1573/8, 1586/8, 1902/8,
1931/8, 1955/8, 2148/8, 2153/8, 2185/8, 2193/8, 2215/8, 2326/8, 2385/8,
2386/8,2395/8, 2417/8, 2450/8, 2476/8, 2483/8, 2502/3, 2502/4, 2502/5, 2504/7,
2535/8, 2744/8, 2849/8, 3046/2, 3574/11, 3746/8 and 3770/8.
4.10.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Does not support the proposed development of a Settlement Area at
Okiwi.
- By adding an additional policy in clause 10b.11.2 as follows: "By
ensuring that development of sites has sufficient regard for the sensitive
ecological areas that may be located adjacent (or within proximity) to that area
of development".
- Delete clause 10b.11.2(6) and replace with: "By allowing additional
residential sites to be created in accordance with the provision of an
ecological subdivision."
- That Policy 4 to Objective 10b.11.3 be deleted in its entirety.
- That Objective 10b.11.3 have an additional policy introduced as
follows: "By ensuring that land use activity, development and subdivision does
not detrimentally impact upon, alter or affect the natural and ecological values
of the Whangapoua Stream and its riparian margins".
- Retain the proposed objective and policies at clause 10b.11.4.
- That Objective 10b.11.4 be amended by inserting the following
additional policy: "By protecting the natural and ecological values of the Okiwi
domain and its contribution to the natural character of the Okiwi Settlement
Area".
- Increase the minimum site size to 1 ha where the property borders a
stream, strengthen riparian margins, prohibit dogs and cats, and working with
DoC designate part of DoC's Okiwi station residential amenity to provide for
growth in exchange for the Okiwi reserve.
4.10.2 Consideration of principal issues
Submissions request that dogs and
cats be prohibited from the Okiwi settlement area because of the important
ecological values. While dogs and cats can be prohibited when land is
subdivided (through restrictions of certificates of title) they cannot be
retrospectively prohibited through the Plan process. Therefore, should further
subdivision occur within the Okiwi settlement area, and it is noted that there
is development potential, then should it be deemed necessary dogs and cats can
be restricted through that process. Part 12 of the Auckland City Consolidated
Bylaw controls dogs to minimise danger, distress and nuisance from them. This
is currently being reviewed. It sets out the requirements for the control of
dogs in public places and private land not occupied by the dog owner.
Therefore, the Bylaw process could possibly address some of the issues raised by
the submitter, but it is not possible to ban dogs through the Plan review
process.
Because of the existing
infrastructure and the reasonably flat topography Okiwi has been denoted as a
settlement area with opportunity for growth. However, like many places on the
Barrier important ecological features form part of the settlement area.
Submission 2502 requests that land which is within the Okiwi residential amenity
sub-area which is also denoted as within a sensitive area (council ref 42-7) and
a site of ecological significance (council ref 42-4) is removed from the
settlement area and included within a suitable land unit. Another submission
recommends that the minimum site size is increased to 1 ha where the property
borders a stream. Also, that riparian margins are strengthened and that work
with DoC is undertaken to designate part of DoC's Okiwi station residential
amenity to provide for growth in exchange for the Okiwi reserve.
In recognition of its ecological
values the Okiwi settlement area provides for subdivision with a minimum site
size of 2,000m2 and a minimum average site area of 4,000m2.
These are larger lot sizes than other settlement areas. It is also noted that
discretionary activity consent is required in accordance with clause 7.11.4.2
for any modification of indigenous plants, or works within the dripline of any
tree. Therefore the ecologically significant areas remain protected through the
Plan provisions. Notwithstanding that, providing for subdivision of sites that
have significant ecological features requires careful consideration.
One submitter has suggested
removing the ecologically significant areas from the settlement area and
applying an appropriate land unit. As the ecologically significant areas are
protected through clause 7.11.4.2 it is considered that such an approach is
unlikely to result in a different outcome, i.e. subdivision in close proximity
to these areas. While it is argued in section 4.2 of this report that
additional policies in relation to ecological sites is unnecessary, it is
considered that because the Okiwi settlement area specifically encourages
development in an area that has ecological values, that additional policies in
this regard may be worthwhile. This decision should be made in conjunction with
a review of the extent of the Settlement Area of Okiwi.
Submission 251 has requested that
additional land east of Mabey Road is included within the Okiwi settlement
area. The rationale for this is that there is insufficient residential land, it
is adjacent and similar to the proposed settlement area and will not require the
removal of native vegetation. It is noted that the settlement area already
provides for additional land for residential development in closer proximity to
the existing settlement area.
4.11 Submissions about clause 10b.12- the Port Fitzroy settlement
area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 326/1, 474/9, 1318/9, 1352/9,
1390/9, 1395/9, 1417/9, 1434/9, 1536/9, 1562/9, 1565/9, 1573/9, 1586/9, 1902/9,
1931/9, 1955/9, 2148/9, 2153/9, 2185/9, 2193/9, 2215/9, 2326/9, 2385/9, 2386/9,
2395/9, 2417/9, 2450/9, 2476/9, 2483/9, 2504/8, 2535/9, 2744/9, 2849/9, 3746/9
and 3770/9.
4.11.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
To accurately describe the Port Fitzroy settlement area in clause 10b.12.1
submitters request the following description: "A large peninsula stretching from
the head of Akapoua Bay to the head of Kaiaraara Bay, with a dominant ridge
between. Covered in mainly regenerating kanuka and manuka as the area was once
farmed, and has been subject to out of control fires in recent times. There are
established buildings, including an accommodation lodge, along the northern side
of Kaiaraara Bay. There are established buildings on the hillside overlooking
Akapoua and Rarohara bays. There are 14 properties in the settlement area not
yet built on. The main wharf in Port Fitzroy is an access point for passengers
on the weekly car/passenger ferry, and the Fullers summer passenger ferry."
4.11.2 Consideration of principal issues
Submissions request that a more
detailed explanation is given of the Port Fitzroy settlement area. Clause
10b.12.1 provides a brief outline of the Port Fitzroy settlement area – it is
not intended to be an exhaustive description of the area. However, it is
considered that some of the suggested paragraph could be incorporated into
10b.12.1.
4.12 Submissions about clause 10b.13 - the Aotea settlement area
Submissions dealt with in this section: 1571/1, 1601/1, 2501/4, 2501/5,
2501/6, 2501/7, 2504/9, 3095/1, 3095/2, 3096/1, 3096/3, 3096/4, 3096/5, 3096/6,
3097/1 and 3521/118.
4.12.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- Seeks name corrections (for what is currently called Aotea settlement
area) back to Katherine Bay as this encompasses ancestral Maori freehold land.
- Amend introduction and objectives and policies for Aotea settlement
area (clause 10b.13) in consultation with Tangata Whenua (Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai
ki Aotea). Expresses concern about changes in place names for Aotea settlement
(Katherine Bay) and Kaoa (Kawa).
- Amend clause 10b.13 with a more appropriate zoning framework
including objectives, policies, rules, and assessment criteria, to recognise the
particular and varying circumstances, needs and constraints within the Aotea
settlement area, and in manner consistent with the natural and ecological values
of the area.
- Please make contact directly to the Motairehe Marae Trust with
anything that may effect the Marae or its beneficiaries of the land that it
encompasses.
- Provide for a commercial centre, shop, health unit in the Aotea
Settlement Area.
- That light commercial is provided for in the Aotea Settlement Area.
- Provide for Kaumatua Housing in the Aotea settlement area.
- Include the Marae area in plan for Aotea settlement area.
- Change the name "Aotea settlement" back to "Motairehe"
- Amend the Aotea settlement area to provide, reference and recognise
that that greater protection is required for sites of ecological significance in
the settlement area (Motairehe Bay and swamp (41-1) and parts of Te Paparahi
(37-1)). Provide for restoration of these including the forest and wetlands.
- Amend Figure 10b.9 by deletion of the Aotea residential amenity areas
37-1, 41-1, 41-6, 41-7, 41-12 (affected by map ref).
- Amend clause 10b.13.1 by deletion of the penultimate paragraph
- With respect to clause 10b.13.3 include Motairehe Marae Trust in
consultation.
- In consultation with Ngati Rehua and DoC amend the extent of the
settlement area to avoid conflict with sites of ecological significance and
sensitive areas.
4.12.2 Consideration of principal issues
A number of submissions request
changes to the name of the Aotea settlement area. The submissions request that
the name of the settlement area be changed from Aotea to Motairehe or Katherine
Bay. If these names better describe the settlement area it is recommended that
the name be changed accordingly and that submitters provide information at the
hearing about which name is appropriate.
Other submissions request that a
more appropriate zoning framework including objectives, policies, rules and
assessment criteria to recognise the circumstances, needs and constraints of the
settlement area is applied. Other submissions request kaumatua housing, light
commercial, shop and health unit is provided for. Another submission requests
that the residential amenity areas are deleted.
Community facilities are a
permitted activity within the residential amenity sub-area. While it is
considered that a community facility would include a marae, for the avoidance of
doubt, the activity table could be changed to include a marae as a permitted
activity. In relation to the other activities that have been submitted on it is
recommended that the submitters present detail at the hearing about their future
plans for the settlement area so that they can be considered.
Some of the land within the
residential amenity sub-area is also denoted as a sensitive area. Submission
2501 has requested that in consultation with Ngati Rehua and DoC that the extent
of the settlement area is amended to avoid conflict with sites of ecological
significance and sensitive areas. It is acknowledged that residential amenity
sub-areas convey the opportunity for a particular intensity of land use. Given
the significant amount of land that is available within the Aotea settlement
area for residential amenity purposes and the relatively minor portion of it
that falls within sensitive areas it is recommended that, in consultation with
the parties noted above, consideration is given to modifying the settlement area
boundaries to exclude those areas of ecological significance.
4.13 Submissions about clause 10b.14-23 - the activity tables
Submissions dealt with in this section: 89/4, 89/3, 173/3, 173/4,
178/3,178/4, 179/3, 179/4, 180/3, 180/4,181/3, 181/4, 182/3, 182/4,183/3, 183/4,
184/3, 184/4, 185/3, 185/4, 186/3, 186/4, 187/3, 187/4, 188/3, 188/4, 189/3,
189/4, 190/3, 190/4, 191/3, 191/4, 192/3, 192/4, 193/3, 193/4, 194/3, 194/4,
195/3, 195/4, 196/3, 196/4, 197/3, 197/4, 198/3, 198/4, 199/3, 199/4, 200/3,
200/4, 201/3, 201/4, 202/3, 202/4, 203/3, 203/4, 204/3, 204/4, 205/3, 205/4,
206/3, 206/4, 207/3, 207/4, 208/3, 208/4, 209/3, 209/4, 210/3, 210/4, 211/3,
211/4, 212/3, 212/4, 213/3, 213/4, 214/3, 214/4, 215/3, 215/4, 216/3, 216/4,
217/3, 217/4, 218/3, 218/4, 219/3, 219/4, 220/3, 220/4, 221/3, 221/4, 222/3,
222/4, 223/3, 223/4, 224/3, 224/4, 225/3, 225/4, 226/3, 226/4, 227/3, 227/4,
228/3, 228/4, 229/3, 229/4, 230/3, 230/4, 231/3, 231/4, 232/3,232/4, 233/3,
233/4, 234/3, 234/4, 235/3, 235/4, 236/3, 236/4, 239/3, 239/4, 252/3, 252/4,
253/3, 253/4, 279/3, 279/4, 381/3, 381/4, 474/10, 537/9, 537/10, 879/1, 1057/1,
1059/1, 1061/1, 1083/1, 1318/10, 1321/1, 1352/10, 1366/1, 1376/1, 1390/10,
1395/10, 1417/10, 1427/1, 1433/1, 1434/10, 1436/1, 1444/1, 1476/1, 1507/1,
1519/1, 1532/3, 1533/1, 1533/2, 1533/3, 1536/10, 1562/10, 1565/10,
1573/10,1586/10, 1902/10, 1904/1, 1905/1, 1914/1, 1926/1, 1929/1, 1931/10,
1939/1, 1944/1, 1955/10, 1956/1,1960/1, 1970/1, 2007/1, 2044/3, 2044/4, 2084/1,
2087/1, 2148/10, 2153/10, 2185/10, 2193/10, 2194/2, 2215/10, 2233/1, 2261/1,
2302/1,2302/2 , 2302/3, 2302/4, 2303/1, 2321/1, 2325/1, 2326/10, 2357/3, 2357/4,
2382/1, 2383/1 ,2384/1, 2385/10, 2386/10, 2395/10, 2417/10, 2426/1, 2429/1,
2430/1,2431/1 2432/1, 2433/1, 2434/1, 2434/2,2434/3 ,2434/4, 2435/1, 2435/2,
2435/3, 2435/4, 2449/1,2450/10, 2461/1, 2476/10, 2482/1, 2483/10, 2500/3,
2500/4, 2535/10, 2544/1, 2715/3, 2715/4, 2744/10, 2746/1, 2849/10, 2850/1,
3089/6, 3746/10, 3747/1, 3770/10, 3772/1, 3774/1, 3856/1, 3856/2, 3856/3 and
3856/4.
4.13.1 Key issues raised in decisions requested
- With respect to clause 10b.13.3 include Motairehe Marae Trust in
consultation.
- Insert community care facilities (as defined in the Central Area
Section of the Auckland City District Plan) as a permitted activity into clause
10b.15.1 and 10b.16.1.
- Amend clause 10b.15.1 and 10b.16.1 to include the following activity
and status: Emergency Services Facilities - P
- Include visitor accommodation as a discretionary activity within the
residential land unit for Whangaparapara.
- Amend clause 10b.17.1 so that the letting of dwellings for visitors
and tourists at a daily tariff is a permitted activity.
- Amend the provisions for the Tryphena reserve and coastal margins
area so that the letting of dwellings for visitors and tourists at a daily
tariff is a permitted activity
- Retention and implementation of the Claris light industrial area
within the Plan
- Include a listing for the activity "Sand quarrying" which appears in
clause 10b.20.1, with a simple cross reference to the definition of "Quarrying"
i.e. "Sand quarrying - refer to Quarrying"
- Adoption of clause 10b.20.1 Rules - activity table, for the Claris
light industry area, subject to the following modifications and additions:
|
Activity |
Status |
|
Dwellings and/or residential activities (where ancillary to any permitted or
established activity) |
P |
| Motor
vehicle sales |
D |
|
Non-commercial firewood harvesting |
P |
|
Offices (where ancillary to any permitted or established activity) |
P |
|
Offices |
D |
|
Retail sales of goods, products and materials produced on sites within the
Claris Light Industrial Area and of ancillary or related products |
P |
|
Retail sales |
D |
|
Recycling facilities |
P |
|
Existing sand quarrying activities undertaken on part of Lot 1 DP150350 and
Lot 2 DP349202 |
P |
- Remove the unnecessary limitation on "Home occupations" by deleting
the words "on existing sites with an established residential use" from the
seventh row of the activity table at clause 10b.20.1.
- Retain proposed activity table 10b.21.1 (Claris airport area).
- Retain the proposed activity table and explanation contained at
clause 10b.22.1, particularly the provision for open air markets.
- Retain the proposed activity table at clause 10b.22.1 which provides
for educational facilities as permitted activities within the Mulberry Grove
School and Okiwi School and Domain settlement areas.
- Amend clause 10b.22.2 (Mulberry Grove School and Okiwi School and
Domain areas) to make educational facilities exempt from compliance with the
development controls listed as part 10c.
- That the Medlands quarry name (in the Medlands settlement area) be
replaced with Blackwells quarry as it is owned by Blackwell quarry (see clause
10b.23).
4.13.2 Consideration of principal issues
Various submissions relate to
issues that have been addressed in the relevant settlement area. These include
those which support the pensioner housing trust submission and related to that
the need to include community care facilities as a permitted activity within the
relevant activity table using the definition from the Central Area section of
the District Plan. Clauses 10b.15 and 16 are the activity tables for
residential amenity areas and local retailing areas respectively. It is noted
that accommodation for care and accommodation for the retired, elderly or
disabled are provided for as a permitted activity within the residential amenity
area and as a discretionary activity within the local retailing areas. It is
not considered necessary to add another definition to address this issue.
Submission 539 requests that
emergency service facilities are provided for as permitted activities within
clauses 10b.15 and 16. Emergency service facilities are not defined in the
definitions section of the Plan and there is no other definition that they would
clearly fit within. Notwithstanding that, given the types of facilities that
might be expected it is not considered appropriate that, should they be defined
in the Plan, they are provided for as permitted activities within a residential
amenity sub-area. However, there may be some merit to including them within a
local retailing area.
Various submissions support the
retention and implementation of the Claris light industrial sub-area. Other
submissions support it, with amendments. In particular, submissions 1532 and
1533 request that sand quarrying is included within clause 10b.20, the Claris
light industry activity table, as a permitted activity for particular sites.
Sand quarrying is listed as a discretionary activity within clause 10b.20.
Assuming sand quarrying on the particular sites referred to in the submissions
was legally established or is undertaken through an existing resource consent,
it is not considered necessary to have rules that relate to just one specific
site.
Submission 1533 supports the
Claris light industry sub-area but seeks the inclusion of various other
activities, such as dwellings and/or residential activities, retail sales etc
which it notes are not included within the activity table. Activities which are
not included within the Claris light industry sub-area are deemed non complying
activities in accordance with clause 4.2, activities not otherwise specified.
Therefore, they are purposely not included within the activity table because
they are not anticipated within the Claris light industry sub-area. As outlined
in section 4.6 of this report, it is not considered appropriate for there to be
residential land in close proximity to, or located within the Claris light
industrial sub-area as they are considered incompatible land uses. However,
given the 'light' industrial nature of the land unit there may be merit in
enabling the offices and retail sales where they are ancillary to a permitted
activity.
Clause 10b.20, the Claris light
industry sub-area activity table, states that home occupations on existing sites
with an established residential use are permitted activities. Various
submissions seek that the words "on existing sites with an established
residential use" are removed from the activity table. This would mean that new
home occupations are permitted activities. Home occupations are defined in part
14 of the Plan. Primarily they are for commercial use of a site which is
secondary or incidental to its use for residential purposes. Given the Claris
light industrial sub-area currently requires consent as a non-complying activity
for residential uses, (although some relaxation on this is recommended above) it
would be inconsistent for home occupations that do not already exist to be
permitted.
Some submissions also request
that non-commercial firewood harvesting and recycling facilities are provided
for as permitted activities. The Plan defines commercial firewood harvesting
and requires discretionary activity consent in the Clause 10b.20. The issue of
firewood harvesting is being specifically addressed in a future hearing report.
The Plan does not define recycling facilities, but refuse transfer stations
require consent as a discretionary activity.
Submission 1061 seeks that
educational facilities are exempt from compliance with development controls as
they apply to the Mulberry Grove School and the Okiwi School and Domain areas.
Educational facilities are a permitted activity within the relevant sub-area,
but 'standard' development controls apply (e.g. 8m height, 4m yards, 30%
building coverage etc). However, as both the Mulberry Grove and Okiwi school
sites are designated for education purposes the development controls do not
apply if the requiring authority (the Ministry of Education) is undertaking
works in accordance with the designation. This means that the exemption
requested by the submitters already exists and so no changes need to be made to
the Plan. It is noted that the development controls will apply to the Okiwi
Domain area as it is not designated in the Plan.
5.0
Conclusion
This report has summarised for
the hearing panel the key issues raised by the decisions requested in
submissions lodged regarding Great Barrier settlement areas of the Proposed
Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.
The report provides an outline of
the key issues raised in submissions and in some cases recommends how the Plan
should be modified in response to submissions. These recommendations are made
prior to the hearing of submissions and therefore without the benefit of
evidence which may be presented at that time. At this stage before the hearing,
it is recommended that this part of the Plan be approved, with amendments, for
the reasons outlined in this report.
| |
Name and title of signatories |
Signature |
| Author |
Richard Osborne, Reporting Planner
|
|
| Reviewer |
Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands |
|
| Approver |
Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning
|
|
Appendix 1
List of
submissions and further submissions
Appendix 2
Summary of
decisions requested
Part 1
Part 2
Appendix 3
Settlement
Area maps from Part 10b as notified
[1] Ecological Assessment of Two Potential
Development Sites at Claris, Great Barrier Island, October 2005 – Wildland
Consultants
